Jindal: End “dumbed-down” conservatism

posted at 1:51 pm on November 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The question that every Republican — and every pundit — will ponder until the end of the year is this: what ails the GOP? That question and its answers isn’t limited to the grassroots or the commentariat. The next generation of Republican leaders know that they’d better have an answer if they have any hope of winning national elections in the near or long-term future.

One member of the GOP bench offered an answer in an interview today with Politico:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich. …

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

Jindal also said that “Simply being the anti-Obama party didn’t work. You can’t beat something with nothing.” That certainly proved to be the case last week. Many Republicans figured that the economic malaise and the lack of any vision of a second term from Obama would doom him with voters, but we ended up getting stuck in our own blind spot where Obama is concerned.

As I wrote after the election, we can’t allow ourselves to fall into the trap of being mainly an oppositional party — being defined by what we’re against rather than what we’re for. We have to have a clear, positive agenda aimed at communicating specific policies that will improve the lives of voters in demonstrable ways. Too often, we offer philosophical slogans about economic policies without offering nuts-and-bolts solutions to back them up. That requires going into hostile political ground — especially in urban areas, where we fare the worst in national elections — and offer specific free-market-based policies to solve real problems for people whom Democrats can take for granted now. That is the most direct route to defusing the claim that the GOP is nothing but the party of the rich.

Where our values demand a firm stance, we need to maintain it — but we need to get better at communicating those values, too. Todd Akin derailed the GOP’s pro-life message, and so did Richard Mourdock to a lesser extent. We need candidates who can communicate better and make sure that campaigns remain focused on those core values and specific policy agendas that will improve the lives of all voters.

If the Republican Party is to have a renaissance, it will have to be led by Jindal and the other Republicans of his rank in the next few years. Hopefully, the message will resonate within the party.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

Ann Coulter had a good article recently about the idea of promoting a pro-life policy whereby abortion would be acceptable in cases of rape or incest, and banned otherwise. This would save well over 90% of the million-plus babies now aborted in the United States, but would do MUCH better in elections than a “purist” position such as that of Akin or Mourdock.

While only a small fraction of aborted babies were conceived by rape or incest, many women FEAR being raped, especially those who live or work in crime-ridden urban areas (which also vote heavily Democrat). A woman who has been raped is traumatized to her heart, and if she is forced to carry a child, the child becomes a 9-month reminder of the horror she suffered during the rape. If a Republican candidate claims that her body will “somehow” reject pregnancy (Akin) or that the child was “God’s will” (Mourdock), for whom will a rape-fearing woman vote?

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed on young, unmarried women who have conceived through consensual sex. If abortion were banned except in cases of rape or incest, such women would have to accuse their boyfriends of rape in order to have the child aborted. Some of them might decide to either keep the child or give him/her up for adoption instead of making such an accusation against a man she loves. This might also incite young men to think twice about unprotected sex, if an “accidental” pregnancy could result in them being accused of rape and spending time in prison. Unmarried men who have already impregnated someone may find it preferable to care for a baby and marry his/her mother than face the possibility of prison. This could both drastically reduce the number of abortions AND the number of children born to unmarried women.

What’s more, such a position is a winner at the polls. While a total ban on abortions is supported by less than 30% of the population, a ban on abortions with an exception for rape or incest is supported by well over 60%, which could help candidates supporting such a position win election.

Although both Republicans making stupid comments about rape and abortion lost their Senate races decisively, Mitt Romney easily carried those states (MO and IN) with the same voters. The problem is, the MaimStreamMedia broadcast those comments nationally, and led voters in other, bluer states to associate all Republicans (including Romney) with Akin and Mourdock’s unpopular positions. If all Republicans could unite behind a position of “no abortions except in case of rape or incest”, this problem could be eliminated, as could the perception of a “war on women”.

Obama had nothing, but too often I heard Mitt say “I have a plan” and then he failed to say what the plan is. Part of it is that the plan was complex and not easily reducible to sound bites. Romney needed his own version of “9-9-9″.

alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Fair enough. But isn’t Jindal saying that we shouldn’t “dumb down” our message and that the public aren’t idiots? So Romney should have made it even simpler? Written it in one syllable words and in crayon?

Please don’t think I’m mocking you. I’m not.

The public can’t take 10 minutes out of their day to hit google or to consider what the meat was in Romney’s plan?

This is the next four years of their lives. If they can’t be bothered to make the effort and understand how their lives are affected then why should anyone care if it ends up hurting them?

Why should politicians care if the voters can’t be bothered to at least remotely try to help themselves?

Yes, because people like you keep raising the red herring of conservatives trying to legislate their religion, when the Mooslums are knocking on our door and absolutely will legislate their religion. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish between following a moral tradition and actual religious law. Mooslums want the latter; Christians/Catholics/So-Cons want the former.

I mean, when the GOP convention, on TV, openly booed God and Israel – and had their ass-clown presiding officer clumsily try to over-rule the voice vote from the floor like some sort of bumbling late-Soviet apparatchik – that had to turn off people.

And then when Romney uttered one of most bizarre and un-American things late in the campaign – urging his supporters to vote for “revenge” – I mean, that’s pretty polarizing stuff.

Along with making banning abortion, putting gays in camps, and deporting Hispanic octegenarians the center-pieces of his campaign, all this was bound to turn off lots of voters, I agree.

Especially when employment is high, consumer confidence is brimming, most people believe the country’s on the right track, and the incumbent is a cool and total master of national security and foreign policy issues in a tame and almost compliant world.

working from here, and now that the pure small government message was rejected, I would say that we should focus on the low hanging fruit of issues were we have the popular advantage and work from there. and just forget this talk of making US a libertarian utopia, it wont happen and we have to be pragmatic.

nathor on November 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The message was rejected because no one articulated or explained it worth a darn. It’s like why I can’t listen to Hannity — while I agree with 90% of what he says, he never, ever goes into detail about why he policies he ascribes to are better than the opposition’s. He just splits conservative slogans,as if people are supposed to agree with him just because he states his case so loudly and stridently.

He never cites examples of his beliefs working in real life, all of his stats (when he cites any) are from conservative groups, he offers few logical arguments for his positions. I don’t even know if he knows why smaller government is better or if he just accepts it as a matter of faith.

Many, many Republican pols are the same way. I have no idea if they understand what they believe or even truly believe it.

Pro-lifers who follow Ann Coulter’s advice will be lead astray and accomplish nothing. The only viable path forward for the pro-life movement is to adopt Ron Paul’s position of states rights, even if you don’t like Ron Paul.

Yes, because people like you keep raising the red herring of conservatives trying to legislate their religion, when the Mooslums are knocking on our door and absolutely will legislate their religion. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish between following a moral tradition and actual religious law. Mooslums want the latter; Christians/Catholics/So-Cons want the former.

Nutstuyu on November 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM

1- red herring is to even suggest that america is anything close to be under sharia law. apart the issue of blasphemy, it just not going to happen anywhere in the next centuries.
2-I do think that christian based laws are better than sharia based. that said, what even better is secular laws. and that is the choice here. I prefer secular laws to either christian or Islamic based laws.

Yep. As Thomas Jeferson said “Never trust quotes or stats you find on the Internet.”

29Victor on November 13, 2012 at 4:10 PM

That was Lincoln. Honest Abe was a big advocate for responsible reporting on the internet. Many of his reforms were undone by FDR with the Fairness Doctrine. Although FDR attributed it to the need for us to more easily spread misinformation via blogs during WWII

And all governments will presuppose an exterior morality. They have to, or they can’t write law. As long as we have a government, we’re going to be subjects to a code of right and wrong — unproven first principles. The only choice we can have is whose code.

I do think that christian based laws are better than sharia based. that said, what even better is secular laws. and that is the choice here. I prefer secular laws to either christian or Islamic based laws.

Akin was the beginning of the fall made worse by the dipsh-t in Indiana.. they gave the dems ammunition and the press the fodder.

STFU about your religion, any religion.. it is a turnoff

theblacksheepwasright on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Your post demonstrates the total stupidity of GOP leadership and why we lost.

Akin won his position through a fair election. But to GOP leadership they felt they knew better than the people of his state. From his election they worked to boot him. The Democrats are never that stupid only Republicans. He won support him or STFU to use your language.

When Priebus and Romney came out against him a fellow republican on a fringe issue for no good reason (nothing illegal) they sealed their fate. They made sure that the base would stay home 10 million of them. I mean why should we support the idiot who tells us to STFU and tells us to leave races we won. Sheer arrogance to expect they would turn out for Mitt.

I don’t have to answer you, child. But, I will type slowly, that you might understand.If you, and your NE minority succeed in kicking Reagan Conservatives out of the Republican Party, you will be assigned to the trash heap of history, as so many other posters have mentioned today, just like the Whigs.

As far as what I said to the other poster, it’s the same thing I will gladly say to you: My faith is the same faith of the Founding Fathers, who wrote the documents you and I exist under. I am the same Christian man Monday through Saturday, that I am in church service on Sunday mornings. I will not be told to sublimate my faith by you or any other whiney little psuedo-intellectual Liberal, posing as a Libertarian or Moderate.

I do think that christian based laws are better than sharia based. that said, what even better is secular laws. and that is the choice here. I prefer secular laws to either christian or Islamic based laws.

nathor on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

That’s fair. I think that’s where the debate should be.

Axe on November 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Fair?

Show me any atheist country that worked? You can not.

Secular based laws is just another way of saying mob rule. There is no secular base. No agreement as to what foundation laws should be based on. Secular laws would change with the wind and result in anarchy every time which would then lead to a dictatorship. That is what it has always led to a dictatorship. If you want a dictatorship argue for it. That would be fair.

The message was rejected because no one articulated or explained it worth a darn. It’s like why I can’t listen to Hannity — while I agree with 90% of what he says, he never, ever goes into detail about why he policies he ascribes to are better than the opposition’s. He just splits conservative slogans,as if people are supposed to agree with him just because he states his case so loudly and stridently.

He never cites examples of his beliefs working in real life, all of his stats (when he cites any) are from conservative groups, he offers few logical arguments for his positions. I don’t even know if he knows why smaller government is better or if he just accepts it as a matter of faith.

Many, many Republican pols are the same way. I have no idea if they understand what they believe or even truly believe it.

29Victor on November 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I agree with your analysis.
I think few pols really believe it, they are just following the base. but this defeat is showing that they have to rebel against a section of the base because they start to realize that their way is sure defeat.

When Priebus and Romney came out against him a fellow republican on a fringe issue for no good reason (nothing illegal) they sealed their fate. They made sure that the base would stay home 10 million of them. I mean why should we support the idiot who tells us to STFU and tells us to leave races we won. Sheer arrogance to expect they would turn out for Mitt.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM

And what did it gain them to turn their backs on Akin? The Dems and the MSM didn’t acknowledge it and still hung his words around Romney’s neck.

When will the RNC realize that the MSM will never, ever, ever be their friend? We need to talk around them like Regan did. Instead we go along with their framing of the debate and their stereotypes of us.

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

I will not be told to sublimate my faith by you or any other whiney little psuedo-intellectual Liberal, posing as a Libertarian or Moderate.

kingsjester on November 13, 2012 at 4:29 PM

founding fathers were a mixed bag no matter how much christian historical revisionism you engage on. anyway, they are not saints, we can disagree with some of their positions like, for example, slavery.
no one asks you to sublimate your faith! just dont impose it on others! or do you think that is a part of your faith?

Many of the Christian faith did wrong.
Many of other faiths did wrong.
Some learn some do not.

When these little commie Democrats get the country all screwed up and the islamics or the commies of China come to attack, they will seek out those like me and send U.S. once more to be the spear point to defend , possible a war here within, and they will watch from behind.

Conservatism lifts everyone out of Poverty! More businesses and more business men/women creates more wealth! The greatest growth of wealth and the greatest upward mobility since the roaring 20′s, happened during the Reagan years, for all who wanted to work and strive for their future. Those who chose not to participate, didn’t rise in prosperity! I’m not going to go into all the obvious details, it’s pointless at this time. The fact remains, repubs can either get on the Conservative bandwagon or they can continue to be Big Govt. Socialists! The choice is theirs and no amount of idiotic statements or attempts to diminish the Message of Prosperity, will change reality! eSTAB repubs want to keep blocking out the sun with their thumb, so be it! The Dems will be more than happy to use them and betray them, just like they do to all their constituents!
Fight the Obama Enemy media or Kiss the Constitution Goodbye: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

As I wrote after the election, we can’t allow ourselves to fall into the trap of being mainly an oppositional party — being defined by what we’re against rather than what we’re for. We have to have a clear, positive agenda aimed at communicating specific policies that will improve the lives of voters in demonstrable ways.

The Republicans need to drop the message of free enterprise and small government and redefinite itself as the party of FREEDOM of CHOICE versus the Democrats ideology of CONTROL and REGULATION. That might necessarily mean the Republicans will either have mute or drop altogether it’s messages on social issues. But it’s time for the GOP to realize all else must be subordinated to winning elections and heading off the insolvency of the United States of America.

Its important for the Republicans to redefine itself. But it also must equally work towards redefinig the Democrats.

No agreement as to what foundation laws should be based on. Secular laws would change with the wind and result in anarchy every time which would then lead to a dictatorship. That is what it has always led to a dictatorship. If you want a dictatorship argue for it. That would be fair.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I dont agree, but that is not the point here. the point is that no one will make a connect abortion or gay marriage with future dictatorships and the socon positions are unpopular and minoritary and its senseless to keep them as a flags of the GOP.

I repeat, we can disagree with some of their positions like, for example, slavery or even religion.no one asks you to sublimate your faith! just dont impose it on others! or do you think that is a part of your faith?

Sharing Christ is a part of my faith….and millions of others. Traditional Americans Values may not be popular in your little corner of NJ, but, perhaps if you will look at a map that shows how Americans actually voted. you will realize that they are not regulated to minority status.

That whole speech of Jackson’s is one of entitlement. “We want” and “we will march for it.” The appeal of “we want jobs” is nothing more than a rallying cry for his constituency that the government must provide jobs, too. Where is the sense of we will work in our own communities to provide livable homes, good schools, safe communities, etc.? This is nothing more than demagogeuery,

I’ve been a registered republican since June 1992. In fact I sat on a plane w/ Sen Joe Lieberman less than a week after I switched parties and explinaed to Joe why I swithced parties. Mainly the war on Christians by democrats BUT that does not excuse the inherent ignorance of foisting upon others your religous zealotry.. christian, muslim etc. Matters not to me.

I hate abortion.. but I hate ignorance equally, under the guise of religous righteousness.

Gay marriage ..who gives a sh-t, ain’t for me but neither are nutjobs religous zealots.. get goverment out of the marriage business.

And I should add I’ve just finished a week in Italy in awe of the passion inspired by Christ.. but that doesn’t excuse ignorance

Sharing Christ is a part of my faith….and millions of others. Traditional Americans Values may not be popular in your little corner of NJ, but, perhaps if you will look at a map that shows how Americans actually voted. you will realize that they are not regulated to minority status.

kingsjester on November 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM

sharing christ is not imposing christ! one relies just in Evangelical work, the other wants to make christian laws the law of the land.
i am not from NJ(sandy was a big hurricane) but even in the deepest bible belt you still should not be imposing christ on any one.

secularism was a direct response to sectarian wars in europe. I wont forget that lesson.

When these little commie Democrats get the country all screwed up and the islamics or the commies of China come to attack, they will seek out those like me and send U.S. once more to be the spear point to defend , possible a war here within, and they will watch from behind.

secularism was a direct response to sectarian wars in europe. I wont forget that lesson.

nathor on November 13, 2012 at 5:20 PM

You could not be more wrong.

After World War 2 Europe was very strongly religious.

The French Revolution was fought by secularist that and only that war. The people saw what the result was. They never wanted a repeat. It quickly fell apart.

Now the communist/secularist Communist ruled Eastern Europe but the people never supported that. The people that lived under it understand that secularism is pure evil and leaves the people in a class system where 99% are poor and 1% rich. No middle class.

I said your imposing your beliefs is ignorance. You can share BUT DO NOT IMPOSE- you then are no different than those who would impose Sharia law..

I’m all for a moral society and a good one- but your imposing your zealotry is equal to the ugly side of democrats

theblacksheepwasright on November 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM

No difference?

Shria is communism a dictatorship with the Immans the dictators. Where all other religions are murdered or taxed heavily and where those people have almost no legal rights. Like Egypt where christian girls that are pretty are forced to be wives of rich Muslims. This is always the case Sharia is horrible for gays and girls both heavily persecuted.

Laws must have some foundation. Religion offers the only foundation there is on earth. Secularism is like the wind different every day. It can not possibly support law. It is anarchy by definition.

If the GOP wishes to embrace the values of the Democratic party they will not receive my vote. I am not invested in the success of the GOP if it does not represent my values. I am invested in my values, not a political party. The GOP can go ahead and do whatever it wants if it really just wants to get back in power. But I am not on that bandwagon.

There are several items that keep reappearing on this site that I have a comment on. One is the TEA party. The name stands for Taxed Enough Already. Not God is my Shepard. Those of us in the TEA party did not align ourselves with the religious right nor did we think that the political pool was short on religious positions. It was about taxes and poor representation. The msm loves to blame the Akin’s and the Murdock’s on the TEA party but that is just one of their many lies.
Another thing is that too many religious Republicans think that they have to wear their religion as a badge of honor and that their candidates must do the same. Do you ask you dentist or grocer what their religious beliefs are? If you need surgery do you ask for a Christian surgeon? Where does this nonsense come into play in a political race? Obama has done and will do more to hurt religion than any man in the history of the USA and yet he claims that he is a Christian! My final thought is on the idiots who decide to run for office and either bring up or are asked about rape/contraceptives and the associated issues concerning them. Why do these people have to respond? Are they in charge of rape on the federal level? Who cares what their private opinions are on these subjects EXCEPT Demorats! They live in vulgar anticipation of the next Akin blurting out his stupidity. Of course there are some Republicans who believe the same way as he does but they are not the majority nor do they represent the views of most of us. The bottom line is that our candidates must learn the art of avoiding elaborate answers to stupid questions. Remember Dukakis and his stupid rape answer about his wife? That is the only time a Demorat has ever been held to account for a stupid answer in my lifetime. For those of you that have deep faith that’s fine but do not require all of the rest of us to have the same level of faith that you do. Look for professional ability to solve the problems that face our nation and leave the religious demands to you and your God.

I dont agree, but that is not the point here. the point is that no one will make a connect abortion or gay marriage with future dictatorships and the socon positions are unpopular and minoritary and its senseless to keep them as a flags of the GOP.

nathor on November 13, 2012 at 4:56 PM

But the Democrat position on abortion is extreme. That’s would should be explained. Propagating late term and partial birth abortions as humanitarian victories is – strange.

And abortion is NOT about women’s rights. That’s propaganda. Abortion is about getting rid of those “of whom we don’t want too many of.” Justice Ginsburg was very clear about that.

The French Revolution was fought by secularist that and only that war. The people saw what the result was. They never wanted a repeat. It quickly fell apart.

Now the communist/secularist Communist ruled Eastern Europe but the people never supported that. The people that lived under it understand that secularism is pure evil and leaves the people in a class system where 99% are poor and 1% rich. No middle class.

you claim that some more secular regimes were also engaged in warfare and you are right. but in no way I hold the delusion that without religious law there will be no war. I just think without religious law there will be one less excuse to make war.

“We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He’s right, but how in the hell did the Obamas and the Clintons get so damn rich without ever really working for or running a business?

I say call the Dems’ bluff and let them raise taxes on the rich all they want and see what happens. It won’t be good, but this is one platform that can be ripped out from under them, and they won’t be able to revisit any time in the foreseeable future.

But the Democrat position on abortion is extreme. That’s would should be explained. Propagating late term and partial birth abortions as humanitarian victories is – strange.

fine

And abortion is NOT about women’s rights. That’s propaganda. Abortion is about getting rid of those “of whom we don’t want too many of.” Justice Ginsburg was very clear about that.

Gelsomina on November 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM

fine position but, and for what i know, mourdock opponent is also a pro-life dem and he won the race. the issue seems to be that pro life repubs cant seem to shut up about this issue, connecting it to their religious beliefs and how they dont want any exception.
I am pro-choice but I really wish these issues were decided by referendums instead of holding an entire party hostage to such dividing social issues.

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

I’m flabbergasted. I don’t even know where to start. My God! Are we REALLY going to accept the propaganda of Democrats at face value? Did nobody notice that they’re neck-deep in cronyism?… all the while accusing us of the kind of shenanigans they engage in shamelessly?

Seriously. Republicans need to understand that this is about the Nanny State. It’s about keeping that gravy train rolling. Look at the way they treat our people. If they’re white, they roll out the “country club” stereotype, and if they’re people of color, they’re treated as “race traitors”. It’s not about demographics, or amnesty, or any other damned deflection.

1. Stop with the inbred religious crapola. no self respecting intelligent person wants to hear that line of BS, so all you are left with are the lazy fascist religious types and they are too busy watching NASCAR to do anything but get fatter and molest their children. This Christin Taliban suicide path(I though suicide was a sin right? doesn’t it say so in that lousy manual called the bible?) you religious freaks want needs to go. Your stupid addiction to that “god” lie will kill you politically. smart successful people that aren’t on welfare want nothing to do with the inbred stupidity of the religious, even if they agree with your economic stance.

2. Stop putting up panty waists as contenders, did you see that list above of candidates? they all wear lip stick and prance around, which is odd since I thought you were afraid of the gays even though y’all are a bunch of closet cases. Very strange.

3. stop with the “purity” test and win races. Its because you dopes demanded a “pure’ candidate in Nevada we are all stuck with that POS Reid good job dummies. You also ran losers like O’Donnel(I’m not a witch) and the like. Pack the house and Senate enough the weaklings won’t matter.

None of you will listen though because you are all just like the Demicans you want control of people lives and you want to tell them how to live.Both these parties needs to go but that won’t happen too many welfare queens on both sides will insure that the United States is now worse then Greece debt wise.

1. Stop with the inbred religious crapola. no self respecting intelligent person wants to hear that line of BS, so all you are left with are the lazy fascist religious types and they are too busy watching NASCAR to do anything but get fatter and molest their children. This Christin Taliban suicide path(I though suicide was a sin right? doesn’t it say so in that lousy manual called the bible?) you religious freaks want needs to go. Your stupid addiction to that “god” lie will kill you politically. smart successful people that aren’t on welfare want nothing to do with the inbred stupidity of the religious, even if they agree with your economic stance.

Your Mamma loves me on November 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Would a bigot like you qualify as a “self-respecting intelligent person?” Coulda fooled me.

While my values may be similar to everyone else’s about the hate for abortion and gay marriage not being for me.. But that is the point, they are my values and don’t have shit to do with a vote. We can share values but we needn’t impose our sense of morality on others, that not the governments role, but rather churches.

Religion in Amercia is fading and if republicans want to hitch their horse to that wagon and espouse the Akin/ Murdoch line, expect failure at every corner and welcome in socialism.

I’d rather win the election and work on values through the proper means (churches and outreach)but that is NOT the role of goverment

Another thing is that too many religious Republicans think that they have to wear their religion as a badge of honor and that their candidates must do the same. Do you ask you dentist or grocer what their religious beliefs are? If you need surgery do you ask for a Christian surgeon? Where does this nonsense come into play in a political race?

It’s regional. Politicians in red states win if they wear religion on their sleeves. In more religiously diverse regions politicians tread very carefully in that area.

I do think that christian based laws are better than sharia based. that said, what even better is secular laws. and that is the choice here. I prefer secular laws to either christian or Islamic based laws.

nathor on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

So let’s enshrine “survival of the fittest” into the legal code.

Silly nathor, no one is demanding a Christian version of sharia.
Western Civilization’s values have historically been educated by Judeo-Christian values.
With what would you substitute them?

Forget the Blacks and Hispanics. We need to figure out exactly how to appeal to Chinese, Korean, and Indian immigrants. They are a natural GOP constituency. They work hard, raise their kids right, are family oriented, and many (particularly the Koreans) are religious.

If we’re going to play identity politics, this is the demographic to go for.

The biggest problem with GOP this time was that it failed to explain how free market policies help individual middle class Americans. More often than not their defense of free market was exactly what many in this board is describing:

The rich guy worked for his wealth and nobody should be able to take it away from him.

While conservatism should advocate that, a middle class guy gains nothing from this aspect of conservative policies.

What conservatives should have emphasized was the policies that makes republicans the party of upward mobility.

A good example is how repubs dealt with the occupy movement. Instead of arguing with them about sharing rich peoples’ wealth (which is simply fighting in their turf), repubs should have spent their effort pointing out how Obama’s policies were making a bunch of people so desperate and hopeless that they were going around occupying things. Repubs should have used occupy as an example of how Obama was killing the American dream – American dream of those hippies. Again I am not saying that they would agree with you, but the common people would.

Nobody needs to give up their values. Encouraging people through civil discourse to give up detrimental lifestyles is the way we should be changing hearts and minds, not go running to the government to put laws in place banning things from adults of legal age. We’ve seen what busybodies like Bloomberg and Newsom have done with legislating lifestyle coercion. I don’t trust anyone with that power, so that power really must stay at the grass-roots level.

Social cons don’t have to change their tune about homosexuality, but they DO need to drop the national ban-gay-marriage amendment pushing. Opinions are changing on this, like it or not, and you won’t win any converts at all by being overbearing. This needs to remain a state-by-state issue, just like pot, prostitution and gambling. Let’s get back to the states being a laboratory for good ideas and an isolator of bad ideas, and let people pick and choose what kind of government they want.

The biggest problem with GOP this time was that it failed to explain how free market policies help individual middle class Americans. More often than not their defense of free market was exactly what many in this board is describing:

The rich guy worked for his wealth and nobody should be able to take it away from him.

While conservatism should advocate that, a middle class guy gains nothing from this aspect of conservative policies.

What conservatives should have emphasized was the policies that makes republicans the party of upward mobility.

A good example is how repubs dealt with the occupy movement. Instead of arguing with them about sharing rich peoples’ wealth (which is simply fighting in their turf), repubs should have spent their effort pointing out how Obama’s policies were making a bunch of people so desperate and hopeless that they were going around occupying things. Repubs should have used occupy as an example of how Obama was killing the American dream – American dream of those hippies. Again I am not saying that they would agree with you, but the common people would.

CoolAir on November 14, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Yup. It wasn’t the message. It was that it wasn’t communicated well.

Reagan and Newt communicated it well to the electorate. Because they believed it all deep down in their souls.

Romney accepted it later and to be pragmatic and get the nomination. He isn’t a total liberal or moderate, but Romney wasn’t a real conservative at heart and he had a moderate record.

Romney’s tremendous wealth was simply bad optics this year. As well as his Romneycare a year when Obamacare should have been front and center along with jobs. (Even with a few differences, the principal of both health plans was the same.)

And have conservatism and anti Obamacare/Romneycare articulated well from the heart of a real conservative.

That’s what Jindal was talking about. The communication. Getting the real and successful conservative message out for EVERYONE, like
Reagan and Newt did. It changed the face of this country the years they won.

It can happen again, even if we are now damaged by 8 years of Obama and Republican moderates and cowards.

Will it happen? That’s the question.

but a Jindal would be perfect. He was always my first pick. He feels conservatism in his heart, articulates it well and has a successful record of it. (again, I’m sure he isn’t a perfect conservative in every inch of his record. None are. Even Sarah. Even Reagan. lol)

Jindal hits on some of the same points I made last week at a post election conservative meeting.

As I stated at it, part of the problem is, the GOP is viewing some groups and organizations as our “Allies” when they aren’t.

Religion is not our ally. In the past 4 years, Catholic and Christian churches, for the most part, has sided with the Liberals on the most major, and controversial issues. DREAM ACT, which in many cases, grants illegal immigrants benefits better than legal U.S. Citizens, in and out of state, when it comes to college (Namely In-state, or even in county/city, a factor notable with a lot of community colleges, tuition rates) They sided with the Democrats. When it came to Obamneycare. When the church finally got around to reading the fine print which said “Oh yea, by the way, Government funded Abortion is in this bill, and you all have to provide it”. What did the Church do? They came running to us, and said “Oh here’s the short end of the stick, please hold onto it tightly. We need you guys, to clean up the mess we helped to create”: End Result, we get the Akin/Mourdock idiots.

Big Biz/Wall Street is not our friends: Now before someone comes here, and starts shouting that I’m really a secret Occupier, let me explain something: Wall Street knows how to play both sides, it also knows, that when Democrats are in power, it’s best to keep it’s mouth shut, and use lobbyist quietly. But for our side, we look like idiots, when we accept the words of Donald Trump, and give him a spot at Convention platforms and on Talk radio, over the people in our party who have real ideas for our economy, and aren’t just looking to get their face plastered on our tv screens.

Big Media, is NEVER going to be our friend: Dear Establishment, just give up on this already. In 2008, you all fell for it, and gave us John McCain, because during the Primary, the Media portrayed him as some great, bi-partisan maverick, that voted often with the Liberals. The second he was the party nominee, and up against Barack? He was some old wrinkly white guy, overly militaristic, and stuck in an old era. The same happened with Romney this time: “Oh, he’s so Reasonable, he worked with Democrats in a liberal New England state, he’s so charming, and friendly.” Post Nomination: “He’s an ultraconservative Religious nut case, and supporter of big businesses”.

I’ll borrow a certain ski instructor meme out there on the internet:
“If you’re going to keep trying to become best friends with the MSM, You’re gona have a bad time!”.

Skip these useful liberal idiots, and communicate directly to the American people. It’s not hard in the Internet age. Let the Citizens ask you the tough questions. Let the people decide who we want, not some Establishment people looking at a bunch of numbers and the MSM.

Gotta love all this Jindal hate. He is directly speaking to the perception that that is what we’re doing, protecting the Corzines, so to speak.

Louisiana is not a rich state, thanks to generations of Democrat dominance. We’ve had 3 Republican governors, Dave Treen, center right , a little moderate, then Mike Foster, tough, VERY conservative and very much the Governor of Louisiana , he brought Bobby Jindal to the forefront. Jindal’s first loss here was based on a very racist and vicious campaign by Blankstare and the Democrats. Post Katrina, he became the only logical alternative and has done good things for the state. The fact that all the right people hate him just adds to my confidence in him.

Face this people, Akin should never have gotten to where he was. The fact that the DNC poured a hell of a lot of money to boost him into his primary victory should have set off all kinds of alarm bells . Instead, the Communists simply bided their time , waiting for him to implode and he did. Do we need more of this? Jindal is trying to address this. He is not calling for amnesty and he is not calling for abandonment of principle. He is calling for bringing the message, and it is a great message , up from the 1980′s.

Hate the message and the messenger all you wish, and continue to complain in the darkness while the Communists take it all. OR, pay attention to what is actually said and how to make it more easily grasped by the low info voter.

We allowed smears to go unanswered this summer. That was our great mistake. Otherwise we had a superior candidate.

writeblock on November 13, 2012 at 6:51 PM

You hit that one squarely. It was almost as if the RNC was afraid, probably was , in fact, that to counter these , they’d have been accused of racism. Well hell, that was going to happen no matter what . Rightly or wrongly, the blue collar voters, who voted against themselves in 2008 and 2012 , responded to these attack ads, exactly as designed. Failure to respond simply gave them the patina of plausibility. Remember Joe Biden? All his aggressive , hackneyed and vicious attacks were seen as tough guy strengths by far too many. Had the campaign allowed Ryan to truly open up, Biden would still be comatose.

This is why Republicans lose. When you’ve got big names in the party like, Romney, Jindl, Christie,and Huckabee as well as the head of the republican party and “conservative” writers like Kristol that are actually closet socialists, we will always lose. Matter of fact,we have lost. We elect Republicans like the Bush’s that have led us nose first into socialism more so than Obama with Bush 1 and the disabilties act and raising taxes and Bush 2 with medicare drugs and his huge tax credit program that gives tens of thousands of tax payer dollars directly to paeople that don’t work or pay taxes.